Supreme Court says EC can't behave like 'unruly horse' amid SIR row

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on Wednesday asked if the Election Commission of India enjoys "untrammelled powers" to deviate from its own rules and provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act for the preparation of electoral rolls.

The top was hearing arguments on the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while the poll body has wide discretion under the Constitution, its actions must remain “just and fair", and it cannot behave like an “unruly horse" that overrides the civil rights of registered voters.

The legal battle centres on Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which grants the ECI the power to direct a special revision of electoral rolls in “such manner as it may think fit".

The bench posed several tough questions to Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC and said that the court will have to examine whether the poll body can exercise its powers like an "unruly horse".

The petitioners, including several opposition parties and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), have time and again argued in court that the Election Commission is not following its own rules while carrying out the SIR exercise in states.

The Chief Justice took a strict stance. "Revision of voter list can lead to some civil consequences for a person who is on the list, so if something will affect the civil rights of people, why shouldn't the process followed be in accordance with sub-section 2?" he asked, according to a report by NDTV.

The top court was referring to Section 21(2) of the RP Act, which provides for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in a prescribed manner by the Election Commission.

Justice Bagchi asked that even if the top court holds that the EC has the authority, can it be said that such a power is beyond judicial review?

“No power can be untrammelled, no power can be completely unregulated. While the power should not be diluted, but it should not be left an unruly horse. Rule 21 has a shackle of some sort. It says if intensive revision is being carried out, rules have to be prepared afresh and rules 4 to 13 shall apply," he said.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that while Section 21(3) is wide, it is not “unlimited". He questioned why the ECI had replaced the standard list of six documents required for voter verification with a new list of 11 specific documents, some of which are difficult for rural or poor voters to produce. The court noted that such “deviations" carry serious civil consequences, potentially disenfranchising legitimate citizens without following the principles of natural justice.

The context of the hearing is particularly charged in West Bengal, where nearly 1.36 crore voters—roughly 20 per cent of the electorate—have been flagged for “logical discrepancies" ahead of assembly elections. Critics and petitioners, including members of the Trinamool Congress, have alleged that the SIR is being used for “profiling" and has caused widespread “stress and strain" among the public. The court had previously ordered the ECI to publish the names of flagged voters at local panchayat offices rather than relying on opaque digital notices or WhatsApp communications.